Parallel edges drawing callout 4

[jamesemerick]

I am creating a drawing of a sheet metal part and want to specify that two edges are parallel. I used the parallel symbol and specified the datum feature as shown in the attached screenshot. Is this the standard way to call out two edges as being parallel?

Thanks!

 

[KENAT]

Simplistically looks about right for the specific question of making 2 surfaces parallel.

I'm assuming any not directly relevant missing info is elsewhere on the drawing etc.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[JNieman]

You could probably get away with simply adding a "2X" or "2 PLACES" to the 48 degree dimension. That will enable inspection with simpler tools.

There's nothing at all wrong with your callout - it is clear and unambiguous.

 

[jamesemerick]

Great, thanks! Yes, I left out relevant info for this post. The final drawing will have the missing dimensions. I like the idea of a "2X" on the degree dimension as well.

 

[Nella95]

A teeny word of caution - try not to put the 2X before the dimension - recently I did this with multiple spaces in between, and the fabricator thought the dimension was 2 times the intended dimension. 2 places, or 2 plcs after the dimension or GD&T symbol for me from now on.

SW Professional 2015 SP 5.0
SW Electrical 2D/3D SP 5.0
64 bit
Intel Xeon X(R) CPU 3600 @ 2.80 GHz
8.0 GB of RAM
NVIDIA Quadro 2000

 

[CheckerHater]

2 places, or 2 plcs after the dimension or GD&T symbol for me from now on

All of that just because of one illiterate fabricator?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[KENAT]

First off, using 2X on the angle instead of making one surface a datum and the other parallel to it may not have the same meaning depending on the tolerances assigned to the angle & size dimensions.

Making one surface a datum and the other parallel to it probably gives the vendor more freedom in how to use the available tolerance.

Secondly, '2X' is explicitly supported by ASME and '2 PLACES' might be considered non preferred given the drive to more standard symbols and less wordy notes - like CH says don't let one incompetent vendor lead you astray.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[dgallup]

Any vendor that can't understand a simple "2x DIM" callout is one I would dump in a hot minute. As noted above, that IS the preferred notation.

There is a difference between just calling the same dimension twice and making one a datum and the other parallel to it. Only you know that the function is and how the allowed variation affects function.

If you want parallelism, the angle dimension should go on the datum surface. As you have it now, the datum is undefined and the other surface has two constraints, the angle and the parallelism. Personally, I think your Datum A surface is on the small side for a datum but your drawing units may be in furlongs so IDK.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[powerhound]

I have to agree with the rest. Your drawing was done correctly in accordance with ASME Y14.5. Your supplier read it wrong. I don't think you should start doing things differently based on the actions of a Y14.5 illiterate vendor.

To dgallup's point, your datum feature seems small for a primary. Could you call one of the large surfaces primary, make the 48 degree angles basic, and use profile of a surface to control them to the primary? You could then refine the angle itself with angularity if necessary.

John Acosta, GDTP Senior Level
Manufacturing Engineering Tech

 

[Nella95]

Okay...I have been too hasty in thinking of changing my practices forever, but since it's not up to me whether we keep with the fabricator or not - I want to accommodate him as much as I can (he has many positive traits - i.e. he can re-work a screw up [not mine in this case] like the master.)

SW Professional 2015 SP 5.0
SW Electrical 2D/3D SP 5.0
64 bit
Intel Xeon X(R) CPU 3600 @ 2.80 GHz
8.0 GB of RAM
NVIDIA Quadro 2000

 

[mkcski]

Given the 18.36 and 48-deg "location" dimensions, I am having "trouble" envisioning the "location" tolerance zone of the "bevel" (that the parallelism tolerance zone would fall inside of). So, I too, like powerhound, recommend the use of profile and additional datums to stabilize the part for a repeatable reference frame.